Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
@bill

Here's a clue


Kalgoorlie Goods Train heading East​

Are the goods wagons getting bigger and accelerating as they approach the camera?

No
 
They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
 
bill smith said:
They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
Click to expand...

It's a concept called momentum. The mass of the object, and its velocity impacts (no pun intended) the amount of force it imparts on the object it hits
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's a concept called momentum. The mass of the object, and its velocity impacts (no pun intended) the amount of force it imparts on the object it hits
Click to expand...

It depends on the mount of force that the plane can bring to bear which is limited by it's weight and momentum relative to the weight and inertia of the building. The plane is one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building- remember ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
Click to expand...
SPAM


IF you could do math and physics you would understand and you could calculate that. Sad all you do is post lies, hearsay and delusional twaddle from 911Truth sites.

The impacts were equal in energy to 1300 pounds and 2000 pounds of TNT.


Like the energy of this blast!

Stop spamming the threads with the same tripe
 
bill smith said:
It depends on the mount of force that te plane can bring to bear which is limited by it's weight and momentum relative to the weight and inertia of the building. The plane is one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building- remember ?
Click to expand...

And?

Do carry on and explain where you are going with this.
 
stateofgrace said:
bill smith said:
It depends on the mount of force that the plane can bring to bear which is limited by it's weight and momentum relative to the weight and inertia of the building. The plane is one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building- remember ?
Click to expand...
And?

Do carry on and explain where you are going with this.
Click to expand...
Indeed!

@bill: you have made a start by mentioning some of the factors... do continue, please
 
bill smith said:
It depends on the mount of force that the plane can bring to bear which is limited by it's weight and momentum relative to the weight and inertia of the building. The plane is one-half of one-tenth of one percent the weight of the building- remember ?
Click to expand...

Every been in a tall Manhattan buidling in a windstorm?

No?

I didn't think so.

I have been. They sway.

Ever read any of the accounts of anyone that was in a WTC tower when a plane hit? No? I didn't think so.

[Childhood chant]
Bill Doesn't know any physics!! Bill Doesn't Know Any Physics!!
[/Childhood chant]

But we are mature adults. We wouldn't tease, would we?
 
Last edited:
Might also remember that the aircraft impacted pretty high up on the building expending its momentum and energy at that point. Given that the building was anchored at its base (I would assume a cantilever connection) that would give the force of the impacting plane a pretty long lever to sway the tower.

The building would sway in the direction of the impact until it absorbed the momentum and energy then would sway back as the now loaded frame unloads and reloads in the opposite direction (and back and forth) until the energy dampens out.
 
fezzic said:
Might also remember that the aircraft impacted pretty high up on the building expending its momentum and energy at that point. Given that the building was anchored at its base (I would assume a cantilever connection) that would give the force of the impacting plane a pretty long lever to sway the tower.

The building would sway in the direction of the impact until it absorbed the momentum and energy then would sway back as the now loaded frame unloads and reloads in the opposite direction (and back and forth) until the energy dampens out.
Click to expand...
Are you helping bill to cheat?

:p
 
bill smith said:
They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
Click to expand...


A strong wind caused the buildings to sway, too...
 
Last edited:
fezzic said:
Might also remember that the aircraft impacted pretty high up on the building expending its momentum and energy at that point. Given that the building was anchored at its base (I would assume a cantilever connection) that would give the force of the impacting plane a pretty long lever to sway the tower.

The building would sway in the direction of the impact until it absorbed the momentum and energy then would sway back as the now loaded frame unloads and reloads in the opposite direction (and back and forth) until the energy dampens out.
Click to expand...

six7s said:
Are you helping bill to cheat?

:p
Click to expand...


Not my intention. Merely expressing my thought for those who might think that he has a point. In any case, as I understand it, it is not like the tower swayed a huge distance or degree.

So is Bill's point that the towers, whose sway would be hard to quantify in most any video, shouldn't have swayed? As proof of video deception? Of ALL the videos taken?
 
:D I think bill_smith is going to wind up concluding that whatever hit the WTC Towers was either moving much faster, or weighed much more, than Boeing 767s.

What that could be, I can't imagine... Some NWO solid-unobtanium aircraft, maybe. oooh.

Note to future Truthers, this is why you should form your own hypothesis. Otherwise, you wind up arguing things for which there is no rational explanation, and it makes you easy meat for your debating opponents. Seriously, give it a try. Hardly any of you ever does, and this is one major, major reason why you all collectively fail.
 
fezzic said:
Not my intention.
Click to expand...
My use of the :p smiley was meant to indicate I wasn't actually suggesting you were :)

fezzic said:
So is Bill's point that the towers, whose sway would be hard to quantify in most any video, shouldn't have swayed? As proof of video deception? Of ALL the videos taken?
Click to expand...
Seriously, I doubt that bill has a point... other than to perpetuate his own delusions
 
R.Mackey said:
:D I think bill_smith is going to wind up concluding that whatever hit the WTC Towers was either moving much faster, or weighed much more, than Boeing 767s.

What that could be, I can't imagine... Some NWO solid-unobtanium aircraft, maybe. oooh.

Note to future Truthers, this is why you should form your own hypothesis. Otherwise, you wind up arguing things for which there is no rational explanation, and it makes you easy meat for your debating opponents. Seriously, give it a try. Hardly any of you ever does, and this is one major, major reason why you all collectively fail.
Click to expand...

As I see it here are two possible explanations.
1. The building did not sway as reported and as no camera records.In fact no shockwave of any kind is observed.
2. This could be an indicator that the no-plane theory holds weight.(no pun intended)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom